Limitations on micro-evolution and speciation

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So another creationist joke.

OK.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK.

That's a 'creationist' joke? with the third guy quoting John 3:16?

Interesting -- I'm sure Jews and Muslims would have something to say about that.

 

[Phred]

That's a 'creationist' joke? with the third guy quoting John 3:16?

Interesting -- I'm sure Jews and Muslims would have something to say about that.

I don't know any Jews who are as ridiculous as you are. I know of very few Muslims who hold to a literal creation. Only Christians are stupid and refuse to admit to obvious evidences in such large numbers.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

That's a 'creationist' joke? with the third guy quoting John 3:16?

Interesting -- I'm sure Jews and Muslims would have something to say about that.

Non sequitur bible quotes is a ploy creationists often use. But why am I telling you this?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know any Jews who are as ridiculous as you are.

Evidently LTTF does, eh? he must think that joke is funny.

If I was a Jew or a Muslim, I'd be asking him some serious questions.

You guys and your one-size-fits-all philosophy can can it.

It's not working.

 

[Greg1234]

Bump to the above question. If macroevolution = speciation, then examples can be provided in abundance.

This question is not as easily answered. When dealing with macro evolutionary claims the results from experimentation are used to determine phenomena on a broader and long term scale. The reason you say that a ceiling fan cannot turn into a race car for example, is not because you need to know what is macro-evolution, if it is the production of a new speed setting, or if it is the gradual increase in the brightness of the light bulb. What is in play here is the fact that the changes which are to occur in a ceiling fan turning into a race car need to follow a specific pattern and has to surpass the limits imposed upon it by the mechanisms at play.

It is preposterous to proclaim that a ceiling fan could turn into a race car not because of what we do not know about a prolonged passage of time, but what we do know about short term changes. Therefore, what is being put under scrutiny is not the macro-evolutionary devices produced when a ceiling fan is turning into a race car, but what the short term changes in the ceiling fan infer about the mechanism of adaptation in said structure and whether it can produce the massive transformation observed in a race car, or even the more conservative changes observed in a standing fan.

In the case of living systems, the same thing is used. Not what constitutes a macro evolutionary change, but what limitations the mechanism of change imposes on said structure. The reason why a definite macro-evolutionary change cannot be produced is because we are constantly testing and observing the changes produced, the capabilities of mechanism and from there, observing the pattern and how it conforms to an indefinite climb from microbe to man and beyond. Take the case of the nuclear receptor and its attempted reversion back to an ancestral form. From Michael Behe's Blog - Uncommon Descent - Part 2

Well, it turns out that Darwinian evolution can have a lot of trouble accomplishing even that simple task, or at least its opposite. In the new paper the authors try the reverse experiment. They begin with the more modern hormone receptor (which is more restrictive in the steroids it binds) and ask whether a Darwinian process could get the ancestral activity back (which is more permissive). Their answer is no, it couldn’t. They show that a handful of amino acid residues in the more recent receptor would first have to be changed before it could act as the ancestral form is supposed to have done, and that is very unlikely to occur. In other words, the new starting point is also a protein which binds a steroid hormone, and the new desired ending point is also a slightly different protein that binds steroid hormones. How hard could that be? But it turns out that Darwinian processes can’t reach it, because several amino acids would have to be altered before the target activity kicked in.

​

Behe then writes:

Before reading their paper even I would have happily conceded for the sake of argument that random mutation plus selection could convert an MR-like protein to a GR-like protein and back again, as many times as necessary. Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought.

​

What happened here epitomizes exactly why definite macro-evolutionary components are not established. The changes which should have been achievable by the Darwinian methods and completely within the threshold of determined by Behe are actually outside it. They were by no means considered macro-evolutionary, now however, it may been seen as a macro-evolutionary change.

The patterns we derive overall are not in support of a macro-evolutionary change. When Darwin first made his observations, he could only describe changes at the phenotypic level as being beneficial or being detrimental to the organism. Today, we can do a lot more than that and we've moved beyond just saying "this is a beneficial change. More and more beneficial changes over long periods of time will inevitably produce a large array of beneficially novel structures". This is a purely superficial extrapolation of data and this is precisely what is shoved into creationists' faces even after almost 2 centuries of advancements.

When we take a look at how these beneficial changes are produced and the impact it has at the genomic level, it is a lot more than just beneficial change upon beneficial change will inevitably produce a large array of beneficially novel structures. What was invisible to Darwin is that beneficial changes are largely the result of the degradation of allele elements which then produce a change which is seen as beneficial on the surface. Yet it is anything but beneficial. So rather than beneficial mutation upon beneficial mutation will inevitably produce a large array of beneficially novel structures, the claim becomes, "degradation, given enough time, will produce a beneficially superior organism".

There is also the first rule of adaptation advanced by Behe derived from the genomic impact of beneficial mutations complied over the past couple of decades. What is being said there is that beneficial mutations are largely dominated by loss-of-function mutations or modification-of-function mutations. Over a great span of time, any gain-of-function mutation will likely be to offset the accumulation of loss-of-function while maintaining a net loss. Again, instead of beneficial mutations upon beneficial mutations will give you a wide range of beneficially novel structures, the 21st Century claim is "net losses upon net losses will eventually gain you beneficially novel structures in the long term".

Merely pointing out that beneficial mutations occur in this day and age is highly inadequate. The same thing with speciation. Like the proclamations of beneficial mutations, claims of speciation are infact accompanied by the molecular value of such an occurrence. Speciation as described here "Speciations"

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Dobzhansky's strong definition is, "That stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The weak definition, proposed by Mayr, is, "Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups.'[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
Notice that the strong definition is strong because it demands laboratory experiment to determine securely whether inter-breeding is possible or not, while the weak definition merely speaks ambiguously about 'reproductive isolation', leaving it to individual experimenters to decide whether their subjects are 'isolated' or not and leaving them to choose for themselves the criteria for regarding them as 'isolated'.

[/FONT]​

The cases which were given are also outlined and instead of merely proclaiming that speciation has happened, what actually determines macro-evolutionary changes is the impact at the genomic level. If a microbe degrades genes which govern the formation of genitalia in fruit flies insofar as to prevent them from mating, this will be described as an example of speciation, but this is not an example of macro evolution.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]​

 

[AV1611VET]

Non sequitur bible quotes is a ploy creationists often use. But why am I telling you this?

To show ignorance and disrespect of Jews and Muslims?

 

[SaraCurious]

Greg, knowing that you have no or little knowledge of what Evolution actually is, I am going to ask you, a second time if I am not wrong, could you actually tell us what you think Evolution is?


You said earlier, in another thread(?), that you think microbes grow legs and arms, is this correct or am I confusing you for someone else?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

To show ignorance and disrespect of Jews and Muslims?

No. I'll let you do that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evidently LTTF does, eh? he must think that joke is funny.

If I was a Jew or a Muslim, I'd be asking him some serious questions.

Alas, being who you are, you have nothing serious to say.

Case in point:

You guys and your one-size-fits-all philosophy can can it.

It's not working.

Keep the lulz coming, AV.

 

[SaraCurious]

OK, I did this for you Greg, I made a graphical representation
of evolution in an attempt to make you understand how it works,
I been assured that graphical explanations are more tangible for
people like yourself that have issues with understanding concepts
by abstract means.

I hope you realize the time and effort I take to help you with
this young man.

Now, my pic is obviously not the best but I hope you can understand
it anyway. I specifically wanted to address Primates as you seem to
have an issue with our family history so if you note the Blue text
and arrow to start with.

This is simple to show you that You are not "above" other animals
such as Chimpanzees and gorillas (for example) as your beliefs tend
to be very racist by nature (your kind of people where the ones
promoting that Blacks where "less" human then other humans as well
as racist not understanding basic evolution thought it said the
same) so this can be put aside and realize that You are not above
other Humans because they would be Black or have Darker skin, and
other animals are Equal to you in the same sense, so we are clear
with that.

Now, to the more important part (as I do not want to go to far with
this realizing you may not even read this or want to talk about it
or learn anything about it); Note how all the branches come from
ONE Main Branch?

Here we need to be very clear as well so you do not misunderstand.
The "main" branch is actually not "main" in this Graphical Example,
it is simple what I used to be able to make the tree, we can go into
details about it but I would prefer using a Real Tree from our history
if this is what you want.

ALL of the Primate Family comes from ONE Source, If you are a HUMAN
you are then RELATED to a CHIMPANZEE (which you would consider inferior
because of your beliefs), we, as humans, did NOT "COME" from a Chimpanzee
(an Ape), but are RELATED in that we share the same Source ("mommy&daddy")
and we Humans are ALSO APE's (which you consider an insult because of
your beliefs and racist history of your beliefs, which I hope you will
lose here and now).


OK, I start with that, I apologize for poor formulations and really bad
skills in Paint, I reserve myself for errors made and hope others will chip
in and help out educate Greg and others about this issue which should have
been solved in Highschool. (Please excuse poor grammar and/or formulation
I KNOW I wrote somethings really badly and I may be misunderstood, I am
sorry I hope you sympathise, I am tired and a bit grumpy).

 

[Gawron]

OK, Sara, so one of your arguments is those who question evolutionary doctrine are not only stupid and/or ignorant, but racist as well?

Ah, the race card. Serving to stifle debate and claim superiority since 1964.

 

[SaraCurious]

OK, Sara, so one of your arguments is those who question evolutionary doctrine are not only stupid and/or ignorant, but racist as well?

Ah, the race card. Serving to stifle debate and claim superiority since 1964.

Eh? What are you talking about (beside being completely off-topic).

He is a Creationist TO MY understanding, and they are racist by default as they follow the Bible literally, which is Racist, male chauvinistic and hateful, by showing him the Facts, I was hoping to make him go away from such views, it could be, Of course, that he is contradicting himself and do not follow the bible on the points he "do not like", and of course, perhaps he is not a creationist and just deny facts, only he can tell me.

Now, please do not try to stray from topic, if you have no interest in that please do not waste my and others time writing nonsense and send pm's if you have issues with members, this is for debate/exchange.

Sara

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I like Richard's description.

YouTube - Born Again Christian Stephen Baldwin vs Atheist Richard Dawkins

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

The reason you say that a ceiling fan cannot turn into a race car for example, is not because you need to know what is macro-evolution, if it is the production of a new speed setting, or if it is the gradual increase in the brightness of the light bulb.

The reason that a ceiling fan cannot evolve into a race car is because ceiling fans are inanimate objects. This has already been explained to you.

It is preposterous to proclaim that a ceiling fan could turn into a race car not because of what we do not know about a prolonged passage of time, but what we do know about short term changes.

Correct, populations of ceiling fans do not undergo short-term changes due to reproduction with variation because, being inanimate objects, they do not reproduce with variation. This has already been explained to you.

In the case of living systems, the same thing is used. Not what constitutes a macro evolutionary change, but what limitations the mechanism of change imposes on said structure.

You cannot assert a limit exists by comparing living organisms to inanimate objects, at least not if you want anyone to care about your assertion.

The reason why a definite macro-evolutionary change cannot be produced is because we are constantly testing and observing the changes produced, the capabilities of mechanism and from there, observing the pattern and how it conforms to an indefinite climb from microbe to man and beyond.

Since we have already observed macroevolution, the above word salad is moot.

Take the case of the nuclear receptor

This error has already been explained to you. In order for us to know that macroevolution can occur we do not have to observe EVERY change, all we need to do is observe it happening once (which we have). In order to then extend that to say that macroevolutionary changes are responsible for the diversity of all life all we need to do is observe those same mechanisms at work in all living things (again, we have).

What happened here epitomizes exactly why definite macro-evolutionary components are not established.

Since macro-evolution has already been observed your error is moot.

Observations of Reality > your opinion

Speciation as described here "Speciations"

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Dobzhansky's strong definition is, "That stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding."
​

I'm not at all sure why you feel this is such a great definition of speciation (it's not) but you do realize that populations splitting into distinct species which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding has already been observed don't you?






Lurker​

 

[SaraCurious]

The reason you say that a ceiling fan cannot turn into a race car for example, is not because you need to know what is macro-evolution, if it is the production of a new speed setting, or if it is the gradual increase in the brightness of the light bulb.

My Sweet Lord, have mercy.
Greg, you think inanimate objects are the same as living objects? Cheeses, I don't think my previous post regarding helping you can do much if this is the case, you obviously do not even have the most basic understanding of, erh, anything?

 

[Taq]

The reason you say that a ceiling fan cannot turn into a race car for example, is not because you need to know what is macro-evolution, if it is the production of a new speed setting, or if it is the gradual increase in the brightness of the light bulb. What is in play here is the fact that the changes which are to occur in a ceiling fan turning into a race car need to follow a specific pattern and has to surpass the limits imposed upon it by the mechanisms at play.

When you find a ceiling fan who has a mate and they can produce baby ceiling fans who have mutations of their own you will have a point. Until then, you have no valid argument.

Tell you what. Why don't you compare the human and chimp genomes and find the differences between the genomes. Now, of those differences which could not be produced by a microevolutionary event? Can you point those out for us? If not, then you can not point to a limitation.

Or better yet, perhaps you could describe the mechanisms that prevents mutations from being passed from parent to offspring, and the mechanism that prevents de novo mutations from occuring in the offspring. What stops these things from occurring?

 

[Gawron]

Posted by SaraCurious:

“What are you talking about (beside being completely off-topic).”

Off topic, Sara? You played the race card in post number 111. It is fair game for me to respond to it, especially now that you have done it twice.

“He is a Creationist TO MY understanding, and they are racist by default as they follow the Bible literally, which is Racist”

So, why is someone who may believe in Creationism racist by default? Oh, because man and chimp are equal in all regards, and Creationist believe they are “above” chimpanzees. A suggestion. Ask the next chimpanzee you come across to define the term racism for you.

“I was hoping to make him go away from such views”

Ironic, isn’t it. You wanted to make him leave the tree of life by showing him your tree of life.

“Now, please do not try to stray from topic”

I go where you lead. But don't worry, I hear the male-chauvinist cavalry riding to your rescue even now.

 

[SaraCurious]

Off topic, Sara? You played the race card in post number 111. It is fair game for me to respond to it, especially now that you have done it twice.

What I understood the "race card" to be is when, generally, a "minority" uses his race/ethnic background to avoid issues or gain something (like avoid getting fired for example), I do not know how I "used" the "race card" mentioning the BASIC FACT OF RACISM IN THE BIBLE.

I suggest you READ the Bible, how much is a Black man worth compared to a White man by the way? I forgot?

So please.

So, why is someone who may believe in Creationism racist by default? Oh, because man and chimp are equal in all regards, and Creationist believe they are “above” chimpanzees. A suggestion. Ask the next chimpanzee you come across to define the term racism for you.

Because they follow the Bible?
And I made it clear that I THOUGHT that Greg believed in and follow the Bible, I MAY NE WRONG, he may NOT follow it, but IF he do, he would HAVE TO be Racist as the Bible is Racist, else he wouldn't Follow it.

QED.

Ironic, isn’t it. You wanted to make him leave the tree of life by showing him your tree of life.

Eh?

I go where you lead. But don't worry, I hear the male-chauvinist cavalry riding to your rescue even now.

Anyone that have read the Bible would KNOW it is Male-chauvinist and would KNOW it is Racist, once again, how much Is a Black man worth compared to White? And what are a Woman worth compared to a Man?

Read the Bible Gawron before mouthing your gibberish.


I am Christian as a note, Clearly we see OUR religion in different ways (I do not follow the literal interpretation of the Bible as I am not a Racist for example, and I do not look down on 50% of the population of planet earth), If you have nothing constructive to say, I will not respond to you as you clearly trolling now.


Sara

 

[Gawron]

I'm not trolling, Sara. Actually, I am having a blast.